全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

自动驾驶汽车适用产品责任的困境及破解之道
Dilemmas and Solutions in Applying Product Liability to Autonomous Vehicles

DOI: 10.12677/ojls.2025.131024, PP. 154-161

Keywords: 自动驾驶,伦理,产品缺陷,因果关系,发展风险抗辩
Autonomous Driving
, Ethics, Product Defect, Causal Relationship, Development Risk Defence

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

自动驾驶汽车算法具有复杂性,传统测试方法难以判断自动驾驶汽车设计缺陷,缺陷与损害间的因果关系也难以论证。同时,自动驾驶汽车的伦理标准和抗辩事由也有待明晰。对此,应增设伦理道德准则,明确自动驾驶汽车自我决策的道德底线;针对设计缺陷认定,前期可采用修正后的消费者期望测试法,后期有限制地适用风险–效用测试法,并调整举证标准。此外,应借助自动驾驶汽车EDR实现因果关系的论证,并限制发展风险抗辩的适用范围。
The algorithms of autonomous vehicles are complex, and traditional testing methods make it difficult to identify design defects in autonomous vehicles. It is also difficult to argue the causal relationship between defects and damage. Meanwhile, the ethical standards and defenses of autonomous vehicles also need to be clarified. In this regard, ethical and moral codes should be added to clarify the moral bottom line of autonomous vehicle decision-making; for the identification of design defects, the revised consumer expectation test method can be used in the early stage, and the risk-utility test method can be applied restrictively in the late stage, and the standard of proof needs to be adjusted. At the same time, the causal relationship should be argued through the use of autonomous vehicle EDR, and the scope of the application of development risk defense should be limited.

References

[1]  杨立新. 人工智能产品责任的功能及规则调整[J]. 数字法治, 2023(4): 27-39.
[2]  张新宝. 侵权责任法[M]. 第5版. 北京: 人民大学出版社, 2020: 207.
[3]  Frascaroli, E., Isaac Southerland, J., Davis, E. and Parker, W. (2019) Let’s Be Reasonable: The Consumer Expectations Test Is Simply Not Viable to Determine Design Defect for Complex Autonomous Vehicle Technology. Journal of Law and Mobility, 2019, 52-72.
https://doi.org/10.36635/jlm.2019.lets
[4]  Funkhouser, K. (2013) Paving the Road Ahead: Autonomous Vehicles, Products Liability, and the Need for a New Approach. Utah Law Review, 2013, 437-462.
[5]  Zohn, J.R. (2015) When Robots Attack: How Should the Law Handle Self-Driving Cars That Cause Damages? University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy, 2015, 461-486.
[6]  Rustad, M.L. (2016) Global Internet Law. West Academic Publishing, 499.
[7]  张小松, 刘小垒, 牛伟纳. 人工智能算法安全与安全应用[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2021: 136.
[8]  郑志峰. 自动驾驶汽车产品缺陷的认定困境与因应[J]. 浙江社会科学, 2022(12): 48-58.
[9]  宁金成, 李瑞升. 人工智能伦理规则的产品质量法立法构建[J]. 河南财经政法大学学报, 2021, 36(2): 93-100.
[10]  白惠仁. 自动驾驶汽车的伦理、法律与社会问题研究述评[J]. 科学与社会, 2018, 8(1): 72-87.
[11]  Contissa, G., Lagioia, F. and Sartor, G. (2017) The Ethical Knob: Ethically-Customisable Automated Vehicles and the Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25, 365-378.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-017-9211-z
[12]  王乐兵. 自动驾驶汽车的缺陷及其产品责任[J]. 清华法学, 2020, 14(2): 93-112.
[13]  [日]福田雅树, 林秀弥, 成原慧. AI联结的社会: 人工智能网络化时代的伦理与法律[M]. 宋爱, 译. 北京: 社会科学文献出版社, 2020: 264-265.
[14]  叶金强. 相当因果关系理论的展开[J]. 中国法学, 2008(1): 34-51.
[15]  钟晓雯. 人工智能侵权: 产品责任制度规制的窠臼与纾解[J]. 河南科技学院学报, 2022, 42(3): 57-64.
[16]  胡元聪. 我国人工智能产品责任之发展风险抗辩制度构建研究[J]. 湖湘论坛, 2020, 33(1): 70-89.
[17]  景荻. 论自动驾驶汽车的发展风险抗辩[J]. 西南政法大学学报, 2023, 25(1): 108-120.
[18]  周友军. 民法典编纂中产品责任制度的完善[J]. 法学评论, 2018, 36(2): 138-147.
[19]  林立. 波斯纳与法律经济分析[M]. 上海: 上海三联书店, 2005: 320.
[20]  牛彬彬. 我国高度自动驾驶汽车侵权责任体系之建构[J]. 西北民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2019(3): 177-188.
[21]  冉克平. 产品责任理论与判例研究[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2014: 87.
[22]  张安毅. 人工智能侵权: 产品责任制度介入的权宜性及立法改造[J]. 深圳大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2020, 37(4): 112-119.
[23]  美国法律研究院. 侵权法重述第三版: 产品责任[M]. 肖永平, 等, 译. 北京: 法律出版社, 2016: 159.
[24]  Bose, U. (2015) The Black Box Solution to Autonomous Liability. Washington University Law Review, 92, 1325-1352.

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133